this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
130 points (99.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8113 readers
729 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Call me silly, but isn't this sort of good? I think they're trying to say "you're immune if you do stuff that presidents do, like be in charge of war, torture, etc, but if you're a normal criminal, you're still a criminal".
Not really, in this case they are equating actions Trump took to overturn his election loss as official duties. It's definitely a messy part of the law, but if you bundle the actions taken to bring down a governmental system with those taken in the administration of that system you're probably only trying to help bring it down.
No, they're saying if it was an official duty, he's immune. If he did something unofficial (as decided by lower courts), he's not immune. I don't know many details off the top of my head, but for example tweeting to the Proud Boys, could be considered unofficial. Or whatever. I'm not a law person.
He can still be prosecuted etc., but it's going to take time for lower courts to figure out how to handle it.
They're also saying that you can't use communication with his administration against him. The place where you would be most likely to find evidence that an act was unofficial has been ruled off limits by these asshats. It's a lot worse than it seems.
The supreme court has already ruled Congress does (via the 14th amendment debacle). There is going to be a lot more impeachment hearings because if Congress doesn't like the president it will find every way to declare the presidential act non official and impeach.
The catch is the courts say what is official and unofficial. A president could then remove Supreme Court members and replace them with ones who agree that such a removal is official and therefore legal.
It’s sort of good if you believe in a unitary presidency or in the rules-based international order.
If the president circumvents congress and declares war on another country, say Mexico, that would be an official act and they would be immune. They could fire nukes without repercussions.
I really hate to quote Roberts, but circumventing congress wouldn't be "within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority", would it?
Oh, there would be repercussions.